My answer is they don't. You cut off the cancer and you, for the first time in 5 years, let your team build chemistry together. Let them play a full season without major change and if they're still a 34 win team then ya go ahead and make major changes again.

Wasn't that pretty much what this season was, considering Bargnani was injured for most of it? Why do you want to waste yet another season, when this core group of players has proven to be a borderline playoff team at best?

Wasn't that pretty much what this season was, considering Bargnani was injured for most of it? Why do you want to waste yet another season, when this core group of players has proven to be a borderline playoff team at best?

Cause Boozer isn't Chris Paul, he's not going to help the situation.

Without him we're a borderline playoff team, with him we're a borderline playoff team.
It's change for the sake of change. It's the type of change that fans want because it works in video games and fantasy leagues.

The only way I see this move helping us is if we can get Boozer to come off the bench, give him 25-30 off the bench to provide secondary scoring. But I know how this shit works, you bring in a guy who is an ex-allstar and is getting paid that much and he's going to be front and centre and the offense will change to make it work for him.

Without him we're a borderline playoff team, with him we're a borderline playoff team.
It's change for the sake of change. It's the type of change that fans want because it works in video games and fantasy leagues.

The only way I see this move helping us is if we can get Boozer to come off the bench, give him 25-30 off the bench to provide secondary scoring. But I know how this shit works, you bring in a guy who is an ex-allstar and is getting paid that much and he's going to be front and centre and the offense will change to make it work for him.

Cue another awful season.

I didn't say anything about Boozer. I was referring to your stated preference of making no change whatsoever, in the name of letting the team build chemistry.

I personally am not a big fan of a Boozer trade, but I think it's a joke to think that this team is good enough as is that no changes should be made (aside from dumping Bargnani).

Even though I'm not big on Boozer (mainly for financial reasons), I think this team would have been much better the 2nd half of this season had a Bargnani-Boozer trade gone down. Bargnani was rotting on the bench while guys like Gray, Acy, Gay and Fields spent time at the C/PF spot on the 2nd unit. Regardless whether he was starting or coming off the bench, I can't see any logical argument for Boozer not improving this team, both on the court with his play and with his veteran leadership. It would have been adding a solid player for essentially nothing.

I didn't say anything about Boozer. I was referring to your stated preference of making no change whatsoever, in the name of letting the team build chemistry.

I personally am not a big fan of a Boozer trade, but I think it's a joke to think that this team is good enough as is that no changes should be made (aside from dumping Bargnani).

Even though I'm not big on Boozer (mainly for financial reasons), I think this team would have been much better the 2nd half of this season had a Bargnani-Boozer trade gone down. Bargnani was rotting on the bench while guys like Gray, Acy, Gay and Fields spent time at the C/PF spot on the 2nd unit. Regardless whether he was starting or coming off the bench, I can't see any logical argument for Boozer not improving this team, both on the court with his play and with his veteran leadership. It would have been adding a solid player for essentially nothing.

It's not about "being good enough as it is that no changes should be made."

It's actually the opposite: this team is bad enough that no changes should be made -- until they know where the right changes should actually be made. I'm sure as hell not confident right now saying that Gay/DD/Lowry/Amir/Valanciunas are all definitely long-term pieces here that can win a championship 3 or 4 or 5 years down the line, are you? And if you're not, why would you add Boozer to that mix? Another non-permanent piece who might make the team better for one season -- or worse, two, if he stays til contract end -- while simultaneously taking minutes from the guys they need desperately to continue evaluating to see if they can make the team better for longer than one season.

And it's not "no change", either. You ignored the bit about trading Bargnani for smaller pieces. As Letter N said, bringing Boozer on board = making him a starter and a big piece of the team. You don't bring in a guy making $16M a year to play 15-20 minutes a game.

You trade for Boozer now, you're basically saying that you're willing to take on that massive contract because Boozer is good enough to significantly improve this team. That's crazy talk.

Last edited by jimmie; Thu Apr 18th, 2013 at 04:27 PM.

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

It's not about "being good enough as it is that no changes should be made."

It's actually the opposite: this team is bad enough that no changes should be made -- until they know where the right changes should actually be made. I'm sure as hell not confident right now saying that Gay/DD/Lowry/Amir/Valanciunas are all definitely long-term pieces here that can win a championship 3 or 4 or 5 years down the line, are you? And if you're not, why would you add Boozer to that mix? Another non-permanent piece who might make the team better for one season -- or worse, two, if he stays til contract end -- while simultaneously taking minutes from the guys they need desperately to continue evaluating to see if they can make the team better for longer than one season.

And it's not "no change", either. You ignored the bit about trading Bargnani for smaller pieces. As Letter N said, bringing Boozer on board = making him a starter and a big piece of the team. You don't bring in a guy making $16M a year to play 15-20 minutes a game.

You trade for Boozer now, you're basically saying that you're willing to take on that massive contract because Boozer is good enough to significantly improve this team. That's crazy talk.

I was just disagreeing with his rationale that "major change" was not required and shouldn't be done, instead letting this core (possibly with minor pieces added from Bargnani trade, if he's not simply amnestied) play all of next season together in order to develop chemistry. The idea of leaving this team as is, aside from very minor changes, is what I think is a joke - but I never referred to what any specific "major change" would entail (he just assumed I meant Boozer, since that's who he and Matt were talking about).

For the record, I don't believe this core is good enough. I would prefer Amir being the 3rd big and DeRozan traded for an upgraded starting PF, with Fields moving into the starting SG spot for better balance.

Any talk about Boozer, either in hindsight or this offeseason, was a completely separate conversation. I was happy that the rumored Boozer trade didn't go down at the deadline, mainly for financial reasons. I am still not supportive of a Boozer trade, but at least if Kleiza's being amnestied is factored in, then a Bargnani-Boozer trade could be considered net-even financially speaking (though his contract is longer, so still worse in the long-run). Boozer is undeniably a talent/fit improvement over Bargnani, however.

I was just disagreeing with his rationale that "major change" was not required and shouldn't be done, instead letting this core (possibly with minor pieces added from Bargnani trade, if he's not simply amnestied) play all of next season together in order to develop chemistry. The idea of leaving this team as is, aside from very minor changes, is what I think is a joke

I don't think it's a joke. While major change is probably needed, I think it should wait until they see what they really have with the current roster. I have my opinion on what they currently have, and it's pretty close to yours. I don't think it's great. But Colangelo obviously think it's pretty awesome, to the point that he plans to try to extend Gay this summer.

The only way to know for sure is to leave it much as-is for a full season, and at the same time, prevent any more excuses about new players, new systems, new coaches.

Save the 'major changes' for a time when you actually know what those changes should be. Boozer is a stop-gap measure at best, a major change now with little long-term impact. I'm tired of stop-gap measures.

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

My answer is they don't. You cut off the cancer and you, for the first time in 5 years, let your team build chemistry together. Let them play a full season without major change and if they're still a 34 win team then ya go ahead and make major changes again.

That seems counter productive.

They have already missed the playoffs for five straight years.

They just played a stretch of 35 games where, until the last few, they were 4 games under .500.

They went through a stretch of losing 12 of 15 with this group.... and some real shit teams were in there.

The Raptors are in the horrendous place where they may not be good enough to make the playoffs (or if they do, likely 8th seed) and they are not bad enough to secure a top 6 lottery pick.

The cancer right now appears to be Bargnani (no offense to the poster who took offense earlier in the year when I made this comparison). The only way to get rid of Bargnani is through trade or amnesty. If you amnesty him you are still over the salary cap and you are still carrying $4.6M in dead weight next season in Kleiza.... and you still have to pay him. Then in 2014-15 you are at $49M as of now with no PGs - starting or backup or third string. Forget the idea of amnestying Bargnani.

There have been rumours of getting a PF in free agency with Carl Landry having been mentioned. Regardless of who it is, you need someone. So the question is do you pay Bargnani his money and offer up the MLE to a free agent (2013-14 $15.75M, 2014-15 $16.725M) which likely sees Bargnani rot on the bench and another player coming in who is likely not going to produce as Boozer can or do you pay Boozer (2013-14 $15.3M, 2014-15 $16.8M) and not have to worry about the final 2 years of a MLE on a player such as Carl Landry while also possessing possibly $49.25M in expiring contracts in 2014-15?

Without him we're a borderline playoff team, with him we're a borderline playoff team.
It's change for the sake of change. It's the type of change that fans want because it works in video games and fantasy leagues.

The only way I see this move helping us is if we can get Boozer to come off the bench, give him 25-30 off the bench to provide secondary scoring. But I know how this shit works, you bring in a guy who is an ex-allstar and is getting paid that much and he's going to be front and centre and the offense will change to make it work for him.

Cue another awful season.

The plan worked out well for Indiana - and they brought in a guy coming off an ACL tear.

It's not about "being good enough as it is that no changes should be made."

It's actually the opposite: this team is bad enough that no changes should be made -- until they know where the right changes should actually be made. I'm sure as hell not confident right now saying that Gay/DD/Lowry/Amir/Valanciunas are all definitely long-term pieces here that can win a championship 3 or 4 or 5 years down the line, are you? And if you're not, why would you add Boozer to that mix? Another non-permanent piece who might make the team better for one season -- or worse, two, if he stays til contract end -- while simultaneously taking minutes from the guys they need desperately to continue evaluating to see if they can make the team better for longer than one season.

And it's not "no change", either. You ignored the bit about trading Bargnani for smaller pieces. As Letter N said, bringing Boozer on board = making him a starter and a big piece of the team. You don't bring in a guy making $16M a year to play 15-20 minutes a game.

You trade for Boozer now, you're basically saying that you're willing to take on that massive contract because Boozer is good enough to significantly improve this team. That's crazy talk.

How much a guy makes doesn't determine his place on a team. Did you see Rashard Lewis playing 35 minutes a game in Washington? How many minutes per game was Arenas playing in Orlando?

You play guys based on production. Boozer is one of the top 3 players on the 5th seed in the west and when one of the top 2 players (Noah) went down during the last 15 games of the season, they did not miss a beat with Boozer being a big reason why.

Also, it seems you guys haven't watched the Raptors much this year. They need major changes with or without Boozer (or whoever). They were awful on defense and they were streaky/inconsistent and offense to start the year and dreadful to end.

There are 96 minutes among PF/C positions. No reason why you can't see Amir and JV getting 30+ minutes.

Finally, you trade for Boozer now because you have an unproductive asset in Bargnani with little to no trade value that the other team wants for financial reasons - it is not a basketball trade. As I mentioned in another post, the cost of Boozer is less than it is going to be to rid with Bargnani + MLE PF signing. The idea of trading Bargnani for smaller pieces is bullshit for the very reason why Raptor fans want him amnestied.

To be honest, I'd be very happy if we trade Bargnani for Kosta Koufus.

I just think Boozer's help defense is so bad. Pair him with Jonas Valanciunas as the co-starter, what we'll get is awful defense from our starting front line. Right now, Amir is basically holding Jonas' hands and anchoring our defense. If you take him out of that role, all of a sudden, we won't be getting too many stops which they've lately converted into transition or semi-transition points.

Put Boozer on the second line & pair him with Aaron Gray [or even Quincy Acy] -- he's suddenly a HUGE positive piece for this team. Unfortunately, if you acquire a Boozer, he will be considered "all-star calibre forward" & will be inserted into the starting line-up from day 1 -- which will throw off any leverage we have with our starters since he will be personally responsible for giving up points in the paint.

I think our starters are fine. They will improve individually & cohesively with time. There's no reason to mess with that line-up unless we're talking about inserting someone [whether a 2 or 4] who provides the same things as DeMar [offense] or Amir [defense] + the things they don't provide on the other end -- in short, a very good 2 way player.

You can make the argument that Boozer is a starter for a stingy Chicago Bulls team, but he does play alongside Joakim Noah -- an all-defensive player. He plays alongside Luol Deng or Jimmy Butler. He plays in a Thibs defensive system which overplays the strong side. We don't have that here in Toronto to cover up for his mistakes.

I would much rather convert Andrea into a quality piece or 2 off the bench to help our second unit -- and they need a lot of help.

P.S. I'm implying that Jonas is -- at this stage in his career -- a pretty bad defender, who uses his length and verticality to make up for his late reactions and shortcomings. I am confident that he will improve as he matures physically and develops his understanding on defense.

Last edited by torch19; Thu Apr 18th, 2013 at 09:48 PM.

ďI donít create controversies. Theyíre there long before I open my mouth. I just bring them to your attention.Ē

You know what big overhauls every year do to a team? You end up with 5 years outside the playoffs. 3 different head Coaches, a new starting lineup every year, a different bench every year and no direction. It all leads to the same place. Unless you have a team like the Heat, or the Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc Bulls you rarely see teams make major overhauls and succeed immediately.

At worst if next year it fails, the deepest draft in a number of years breaks the fall. But first they should see who is worth keeping, and who to move by giving them an off-season, etc., to become an actual team. What changes made should come from trading Bargs for small pieces and financial flexibility, and amnestying Kleiza. What should they bring in? A bench big who can play some post, and a guard who can defend both the 1 and 2 as well as stabilize the second unit.

What's with this obsession with needing shooters? The biggest issue the Raptors had is the massive defensive gap between the current starting lineup and the bench. Not offense. Turnovers and bad defense are bigger issues. I don't remember a game where they lost because they lacked a 3 point shooter. I remember poor substitutions, poor time management, poor calls after timeouts, bad decision making by players, but no game I watched was lost because the Raptors couldn't score a 3.

Getting Boozer doesn't make the Raptors a champion contender. It makes the budget ridiculous, but it's adding a defensive liability to a team with a bench full of defensive liabilities. Do I think he is better than Bargnani -- by miles. But what does bringing in Boozer to this team do for the future of the franchise?

I'm kind of on board with Jimmie and Letter N, as much as this team needs some pieces, I don't think those pieces SHOULD be guys that actually significantly change the outlook of this team, unless it is for a Chris Paul, LeBron James franchise changing player, who's positives being brought are guaranteed to show.

I for one, am damn tired of seeing 9 new faces on this roster every season, and using it as an excuse for a failed season. Keep the core, add some key pieces such as a shooter, wing defender, big man who can score/defend inside, veterans, etc, and allow them to work with the core group. Building continuity rather than giving into short term success is a far more feasible and successful plan in my opinion. IF the plan doesn't work towards the goal (playoffs, playoffs, playoffs), than what does Casey have to say? Who does BC have to put the blame on? Fire those two, 2014-2015 season arrive, one, some contracts are shed, in you go into the next off-season with significant cap space, draft picks, and young players under contract - Derozan, Ross, Valanciunas.

Trade Bargnani for a young piece like a Derrick Williams (potential, low risk due to contract, versatile - play 3 and 4) , and a point guard who addresses the needs for a shooter, guard issues , and veteran leadership in a guy like Ridnour.

Whilst I would agree Boozer is a good fit here with veteran leadership, inside scoring, and definitely useful unlike Bargnani, it's short sighted, and only positive that comes overall out is a possible playoff win or two, and a huge expiring contract down the road. I personally think our current core with a number of small pieces rather than one significant piece is/would be just as successful.

Trade Bargnani for a young piece like a Derrick Williams (potential, low risk due to contract, versatile - play 3 and 4) , and a point guard who addresses the needs for a shooter, guard issues , and veteran leadership in a guy like Ridnour.

This is exactly the kind of deal I would look at. Either/or + filler is even fine, if Bargnani's value really is that low.

Trading Bargnani for young pieces or other cheap assets that won't impact "the core" is the right move for a forget-the-hype-we're-actually-still-rebuilding team. I hate the term "rebuilding", but it's as accurate as anything for where this team currently sits, roster-wise. Let some team with deep pocketbooks and their eyes on the championship spring for Boozer's last 2 years.

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

This is exactly the kind of deal I would look at. Either/or + filler is even fine, if Bargnani's value really is that low.

Trading Bargnani for young pieces or other cheap assets that won't impact "the core" is the right move for a forget-the-hype-we're-actually-still-rebuilding team. I hate the term "rebuilding", but it's as accurate as anything for where this team currently sits, roster-wise. Let some team with deep pocketbooks and their eyes on the championship spring for Boozer's last 2 years.

That way, thinking about, a young piece can come in, show terrific potential, contribute, meaning another player being integrated into that current core, which could be a steal.

That way, thinking about, a young piece can come in, show terrific potential, contribute, meaning another player being integrated into that current core, which could be a steal.

Casey does not want young guys though.

He has shown that if the Raptors are playing meaningful games, he will not play them - even JV.

Getting more prospects is not on Casey's wish list and it doesn't appear to be on Colangelo's agenda.

The other issue is Bargnani's value. I'm not seeing a team taking on $23.3M over the next two years for him. I would put Bargnani in the category of CV or Ben Gordon right now. The only thing you are getting back with Bargnani is another tarnished or overvalued asset.

He has shown that if the Raptors are playing meaningful games, he will not play them - even JV.

Getting more prospects is not on Casey's wish list and it doesn't appear to be on Colangelo's agenda.

The other issue is Bargnani's value. I'm not seeing a team taking on $23.3M over the next two years for him. I would put Bargnani in the category of CV or Ben Gordon right now. The only thing you are getting back with Bargnani is another tarnished or overvalued asset.

That's true, but if we were able to trade Bargnani for a small number of pieces, it would better address some of our current issues. Bargnani for Boozer I wouldn't get upset about, heck, quite frankly I'd be happy, but I'm not sure this is the better road to go.

It's a tough situation to evaluate on behalf of Bargnani and his contract, but getting anything useful like Ben Gordon is a positive really in my opinion.

I still think trying to bring in young players is extremely important, it might not be a rookie, it might be a player going into their 3rd year i.e Derrick Williams, a year where Demar got unlimited playing time. So where will Casey's excuse go? Bringing in prospects and picks should be a small part of the agenda, because this team is obviously far too reliant on the internal improvement. JV, Ross, Derozan will only improve so much (Derozan and JV more in my opinion), Gay, Lowry, Amir only have so much room left to grow, etc. Bringing in Boozer doesn't add to any of that improvement, he is what he is.

The other issue is Bargnani's value. I'm not seeing a team taking on $23.3M over the next two years for him. I would put Bargnani in the category of CV or Ben Gordon right now. The only thing you are getting back with Bargnani is another tarnished or overvalued asset.

Not for a great return but I think Bargnani can be traded. So can Gordon. In fact he was traded last year for Maggette. Charlie V I agree is difficult to trade but considering it's his final year it may be possible to trade him too.

Funny you mentioned it 'cause I was thinking about Bargnani for Gordon plus ..... or Bargnani for Charlie V plus .... trades.

Not for a great return but I think Bargnani can be traded. So can Gordon. In fact he was traded last year for Maggette. Charlie V I agree is difficult to trade but considering it's his final year it may be possible to trade him too.

Funny you mentioned it 'cause I was thinking about Bargnani for Gordon plus ..... or Bargnani for Charlie V plus .... trades.

Yeah, those are the type of trades that should be thought of.

You are not getting anything useful or promising for Bargnani unless you are taking back some form of a tarnished/overvalued asset.

Not for a great return but I think Bargnani can be traded. So can Gordon. In fact he was traded last year for Maggette. Charlie V I agree is difficult to trade but considering it's his final year it may be possible to trade him too.

Funny you mentioned it 'cause I was thinking about Bargnani for Gordon plus ..... or Bargnani for Charlie V plus .... trades.

Gordon for Maggette was one bad asset for another and is exactly what I am talking about.

The difference between the two players was Gordon's extra year on his contract. That extra year was worth a top-12 protected pick for the next 3 drafts and unprotected in 2016 which went from Detroit with Gordon to Charlotte.

Gordon for Maggette was one bad asset for another and is exactly what I am talking about.

The difference between the two players was Gordon's extra year on his contract. That extra year was worth a top-12 protected pick for the next 3 drafts and unprotected in 2016 which went from Detroit with Gordon to Charlotte.

Yes, it's one of the things that can be done with Bargnani. If Raps. can compensate the 2nd year of his two remaining years with a pick, they should be able to acquire a player with fewer years remaining on his contract. This player may be able to address a need too. Again it's only one of things that can be done.